US federal prosecutors often threaten drug offenders with decades of prison time in an effort to intimidate them into waiving their right to trial and agreeing to plead guilty, a Human Rights Watch investigation has determined.

A whopping 97 percent of federal drug defendants agree to a plea
bargain, foregoing their constitutionally-protected right to a
fair trial. Government attorneys convince them to do so by
charging a defendant with crimes that have high minimum mandatory
sentences attached, meaning a judge has no choice but to follow
the pre-disposed guideline.

Human Rights Watch (HRW), a non-governmental organization that
lobbies for human rights around the world, found that the three
percent of defendants who take their chances with a trial are
often disappointed. Federal drug offenders convicted in a trial
are given prison sentences that are on average three times longer
than those who accept a plea deal, according to “An Offer You
Can’t Refuse,” the 126-page HRW report.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with resolving cases
through guilty pleas – it reduces the many burdens of trial
preparation and the trial itself on prosecutors, defendants,
judges and witnesses,” the report stated.

“But in the US plea bargaining system, many federal
prosecutors strong-arm defendants by offering the, shorter prison
terms if they plead guilty, and threatening them if they go to
trial with sentences that, in the words of Judge John Gleeson of
the Southern District of New York, can be ‘so excessively severe,
they take your breath away.’”

One of the most flagrant examples of alleged prosecutorial
overreach is the case of Darlene Eckles. In 2002, Eckles was a
single mom who was balancing college courses and a full time job
when she took in her homeless brother into her home in an effort
to keep him off the streets. She told police that one day, upon
arriving home from class, she noticed that her brother – who had
a history of drug dealing – was counting money in the living
room.

“I’ll help you count it, then I want you to get out,”
she said, as quoted by Utah’s Deseret News.

Yet by then police had already been monitoring her brothers for
months and Ms. Eckles was soon arrested as part of a 37-member
conspiracy. Responsible for raising a young son, Eckles refused a
10-year prison sentence only to be sentenced to 20 years after a
trial. Her brother, the ringleader of the drug ring, testified
against her at trial and received less than 12 years.

Experts say that drug cases likes Eckles’ have become the norm,
not the exception to the rule.

“If we want to solve this problem in our community, we have
to stop locking everyone up,” said Jeffrey Goodwin, a
magistrate judge in the 10th District of North Carolina.
“Incarceration doesn’t just affect that person. It doesn’t
just affect the immediate family of that person. It affects
extended family members, who may be asked to care for children.
It affects the entire community.”

US Attorney General Eric Holder announced in August that he had
directed federal prosecutors to cease charging defendants in a
way that automatically sets off a mandatory minimum sentence.

For instance, an offender accused of conspiring to sell five
kilograms of cocaine could be hit with a 10-year mandatory
minimum if the prosecutor wrote that “the defendant conspired
to distribute cocaine” without indicating exactly how much
cocaine that person was actually carrying.

Holder admitted that such technicalities mean prosecutorial
discretion will still be a major factor in sentencing, saying
“widespread incarceration at the federal, state, and local
levels is both ineffective and unsustainable.”

Jamie Fellner, the author of the HRW report, put the situation
more simply.

“Prosecutors give drug defendants a so-called choice – in the
most egregious cases, the choice can be to plead guilty to 10
years, or risk life without parole by going to trial,” she
said. “Prosecutors make offers few drug defendants can
refuse. This is coercion pure and simple.”